Saturday, July 14, 2012

Rand Paul Remains Silent on $9 Billion Dollar Giveaway to Israel

By Martin Hill

The Rand Paul apologists are performing amazing contortions, claiming it's disingenuous to reportthe fact that Paul supported $9+Billion loan guarantees to Israel, since the legislation was passed with a voice vote. "You don't even know if he was there!" "He could have said nay!" "Harry Reid is the only person who you can hear saying Yea in the video!" "Rand couldn't have stopped it anyway!" "You're engaged in libel! slander! defamation! against Randy!"

In reality, this is cut and dried. James Madison had it right- "All men having power ought to be distrusted." Silence is consent, and Rand Paul didn't say one peep in opposition to extending these obscene loan guarantees to a foreign nation, as his father did.

Paul was indeed in the Senate on Friday June 29th, a fact documented by the numerous recorded votes he participated in that day. A full list is here. The specific votes were roll call votes 169 at 12:53pm, 170 at 1:22pm, 171 at 1:39pm, and 172 at 1:54pm.

Additionally, I called Rand Paul's Kentucky office on Friday July 13th regarding the matter. They referred me to his D.C. office, (202-224-4343) which they said deals with legislation. The staffer in D.C. answered the phone and I asked him if he could tell me how the Senator voted on S.2165, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act of 2012. He put me on hold for a minute then came back on the line and said it was a voice vote. (I already knew it was a voice vote, which is why I called in the first place. If it had been a roll call vote, the results could have easily be found without calling the office.) He repeated "it was a voice vote" several times, and I asked if there is a record of how Paul voted in the voice vote. The staffer replied no, and said that voice votes are an "honor system". He could not even tell me if Paul was present for the voice vote. I finally asked if Paul had issued any statement on the matter, like his father did. The staffer said not that he was aware of.

Furthermore, it's silly to contend that Paul somehow didn't support this aid to Israel or that he couldn't try to stop aid to a foreign country if he wanted to. Paul is currently in the news [here, hereand here] for threatening to end aid to Pakistan unless they release Dr. Shakil Afridi, who Paul says was instrumental in the "successful killing of the world's most infamous terrorist", Osama bin Laden.

"I have worked consistently to bring awareness to Dr. Afridi's plight, and I have offered legislation to deny any current or future foreign assistance to the Pakistani government until they reverse course and free Dr. Afridi. In pursuing a resolution to this situation, I have gained the necessary number of signatures on a cloture petition to force a vote on my legislation on the Senate floor. If Dr. Afridi is not released upon appeal, I will seek such a floor vote at the earliest opportunity. This legislation would deny Pakistan tens of billions of dollars in foreign assistance into the future if Dr. Afridi is not freed-extending through the duration of his 33-year prison sentence, if necessary."

In 2011, Paul said that we should end "welfare" to Israel. As Politico reported on 2/04/11,

"...Paul also defended his calls to end aid to Israel, saying they're just part of his bigger efforts at fiscal responsibility. "I'm not singling out Israel. I support Israel. I want to be known as a friend of Israel, but not with money you don't have," he said. "We can't just borrow from our kids' future and give it to countries, even if they are our friends." And, he said, giving money to the country is especially unwise considering Israel's relative wealth. "I think they're an important ally, but I also think that their per capita income is greater than probably three-fourths of the rest of the world," he said. "Should we be giving free money or welfare to a wealthy nation? I don't think so."[Rand Paul: End 'welfare' to Israel]

Despite detractors and deniers, this latest monstrous, warmongering giveaway", as Lew Rockwell calls it, has gotten a lot of attention. Our July 9th article breaking the story is still, nearly a week later, at the top of Google search results for both Rand Paul and Google News Search for Rand Paul. If Rand wants to defend or deny his 9+ Billion dollar financial support of Israel, he certainly has the means to do it. If Paul refuses to explain his support of this bill, he loses what little credibility he has left. A constitutional non-interventionist foreign policy is what will turn this country in the right direction and help us retain our freedoms.

18 comments:

Given the fact that Rand was pretty clear from the beginning that he wasn't Ron, none of this should be too surprising...it certainly no longer is surprising after the last several weeks of being bombarded by one Rand bomb after another.

To use a phrase from Dr. North, Rand chose job over calling. He could have built a legacy, instead he chose to go along and get along.

For those interested, I have expanded on this idea from the time Rand first publicly endorsed Romney:

Most libertarians are getting over it. That's why he's now being hammered the way a statist would be.It is his apologists who cannot deal with the hammering he is getting, because they still believe he is part of the liberty movement.

I don't get the sense that readers are hung up on the fact that Rand isn't a libertarian or that he is a conservative. It's how he used the position of son to withdraw credit on the bank account of the Ron Paul movement, the Ron Paul love, and all the good people associated with it: that is cause for the residual bile and searing disappointment. What're ya gonna do? It's politics. So as Rand Paul sat next to his dad, joined with apologist Jack Hunter and genuine libertarian leader, Dr. Thomas Woods, it's easy to see how people prior to fact-checking assume that Rand was, if not allied to libertarians, at least on the fringe and certainly wouldn't be milquetoast in the establishment fight. It is the far-reaching connivance of Rand Paul that people don't like. Nor do they like precisely the fact that he is Ron Paul's son, the basis for which fired-up libertarians cut him slack. Ron Paul brought an energetically moral message that's been censored for generations except for a few places. The anti-war movement during Iraq was more anti-Bush than anti-war. The hope-and-change movement of the current POTUS silenced the anti-war movement. Ron Paul, carrying the banner of American, pro-God, pro-gun, pro-Constitution, sound-money values served as a lightning rod and electrified a mass movement against mass murderers who prefer your slavery than to anything else. His son watched and learned; that's okay. Now his son is in the same camp with the mass murderers. Get over it? I like it that readers here are keeping an eye on Rand Paul's voting record. Doing our civic duty.

If Rand Paul were as opposed to foreign aid on principle, he would oppose aiding Israel with the same fervor he is using regarding Pakistan. The Pakistan soapbox Paul is on reeks to high heaven. Paul wants Dr. Afridi released along with an offer of U.S. citizenship: LINK

Additionally, the use of Dr. Afridi by the CIA has significant implications in the polio outbreak in the region due to the distrust now directed toward doctors working to help inoculate children: LINK

It seems to me that this web site loses a little credibility in reporting that Rand Paul voted for the loan guarantee to Israel when that is not an established fact. Since it was a voice vote, I suppose that only Sen. Paul himself can set the record straight. But it is clear that some people are jumping to conclusions. The above hit piece is entirely premature. The situation with Dr. Afridi is an entirely different affair, and foreign aid is only tangential to it. Of course, if you eliminate other departments, like Energy, and transfer their functions to the Defense Department, then the Defense budget will grow even as you reduce military spending. This hit piece leaves a very different impression.

I fear the Ron Paul wing of the liberty movement will self-destruct due to it's own dogmatism. I remember when I was hoping so much that Chuck Hagel would get in to the race. But Rand Paul is so much better than Chuck Hagel, at least at this point. It is foolish to nit pick every single decision he makes and even criticize him for not obstructing the work of the Senate by demanding a voice vote on a minor issue that is sure to pass.

This isn't a hit piece, it's just further pointing out that Rand Paul is not supporting the policies that the people who kicked off his early campaign thought that he would support. The issue with giving money to Israel is the way Israel treats its neighboring countries and that our funding of Israel is correctly seen by those countries as acts of war against them. It is intervention, and on the list of things that they regularly point to as justification for violence against the U.S.

"It seems to me that this web site loses a little credibility in reporting that Rand Paul voted for the loan guarantee to Israel when that is not an established fact."

Robb, with every apologist attempt you make to come to Rand's defense you are merely sabotaging your own credibility. Even regardless of this particular issue about the loan to Israel, there have been more than enough reasons presented lately as to why some of us don't stomach Rand, and you manage to come up with lame excuses every time. You really want to take about "credibility"?

"I fear the Ron Paul wing of the liberty movement will self-destruct due to it's own dogmatism."

Don't be ridiculous. The "Ron Paul wing" you're talking about, in other forms has been around for centuries. You would have us absurdly believe that this centuries-old wing would self-destruct through failure to see a compromising Rand Paul as a savior? Not even Thomas Jefferson, the constitution and the bill of rights could save America through the political system.

What is ironic is that the pragmatic "wing" of the liberty movement has ALSO been around for centuries, and the irony is that it is them that prove to us that pragmatism, concessions and participating in the system has gotten us nowhere. It is the system that has destroyed any lofty expectations of liberty through the system, because the system is rigged.

There ain't gonna be no anarcho-capitalist revolution. It is all pie in the sky and not remotely feasible. We are always going to be governed by imperfect men making imperfect decisions. Ron Paul sought to influence the debate, and he succeeded to some extent. Rand Paul is more interested in influencing legislation and that takes a different approach.

Imperfect as our leadership is destined to be, some are better than others. Imagine if Gary Johnson had been elected president in 2000 instead of George Bush. Imagine if he had appointed a Friedmanite as Fed Chairman who held monetary growth to 3% while Johnson, inspired by Friedman's defense of free markets, slashed regulation and reined in government spending. Would we be better off today? Of course we would.

In 1992, Ron Paul anticipated running for president but backed off in favor of Pat Buchanan. Murray Rothbard also supported Buchanan. Again, Rand Paul is way more libertarian than Buchanan. Yet we have people on this site and elsewhere who want to read out of the movement anyone who doesn't genuflect to every work Murray Rothbard ever wrote. Sorry, but Rothbard was wrong about a lot of things.

The economy is headed for a crash. The next debate will be about how to pick up the pieces. The statists will be on one side, and the liberty movement will be on the other. But where will the Rothbardians be? All by themselves demanding no compromise with even the Friedmanites or Cato people let alone paleo-conservatives? That is a formula for irrelevance and defeat. Even Murray Rothbard didn't embrace such a notion.

"Ron Paul sought to influence the debate, and he succeeded to some extent."

If by literally waking up millions upon millions of people, including millions of the under 30 crowd who typically never care about free market principles and are now quoting Mises and Bastiat, then you would be correct -- and what an "extent" it has been. Ron has been by far the most influential libertarian in the last century easily, and no one else has even come close to making things like central banking a mainstream political issue.

"Again, Rand Paul is way more libertarian than Buchanan."

Not when it comes to foreign policy these days. Buchanan would not have voted for sanctions against Iran or welfare for Israel. Rand is just like the rest of the GOP when it comes to foreign policy. The thing about foreign policy from someone on the right is that if they do not budge on it, then the rest of the stuff is usually easy for them to hold true on. Rothbard was completely correct about Buchanan, and I think he was indeed a better choice back in the 90s because of the power of the social conservatives in the GOP. Now with the internet, Paul has been able to get out his message, but even today the social conservative types were the clowns voting for Romney and Santorum and Newt preventing Ron from winning.

Rand completely caved on Iran sanctions and welfare for Israel. He won't be influencing anything, let alone literally converting millions of people from either not caring or being a statist into being a hardcore libertarian as Ron has done.

"There ain't gonna be no anarcho-capitalist revolution. It is all pie in the sky and not remotely feasible. We are always going to be governed by imperfect men making imperfect decisions. Ron Paul sought to influence the debate, and he succeeded to some extent. Rand Paul is more interested in influencing legislation and that takes a different approach."

Hey dude you stay a slave then, just dont think the rest of us will be content to pick our masters.

"He could not even tell me if Paul was present for the voice vote. I finally asked if Paul had issued any statement on the matter, like his father did. The staffer said not that he was aware of."

Comon, Rand. Just go full neocon.

Clearly he's trying to have it both ways. Any other Senator would have proudly said he voted for this bill and how much he loves Israel (more than his own country.)

But not Rand. He wants to pose for the Israel firsters but at the same time, I guess he's still hoping to keep whatever Ron Paul support he still has. He's soon going to discover that the Neocons are a very jealous mistress. They demand total and fulsome support for their pet country and will not tolerate even the slightest hedging.

Politically, Rand is better off completely severing all his ties with us and becoming another of Israel's bitch boys. He will now never be trusted by either side.